Slashdot Mirror
The NSA Would Be Eliminated Under President Gary Johnson (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says he'd sign an executive order eliminating America's National Security Agency if he wins the 2016 election. And he's also forcefully arguing that domestic surveillance of internet activity and phone calls in the United States is worse than in China. Johnson took issue with an interviewer at The Daily Beast who pointed out that China monitors political dissidents, saying "What do you call the NSA and the satellites that are trained on us and the fact that 110 million Verizon users are having everything we do on our cell phones being data-collected?"
Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."
Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.
Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."
Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.
Personal point:
keeping the secret agencies in check & under control = good/wise
abolishing everything = idiotic
bolstering secret agencies further = equally idiot as abolishing them
Hint:
Never choose an extreme, because you can certainly be sure that you are wrong even when you are right.
Still, voting for him could be the "sensible" thing to do. Especially if you're a in a state where it's already more or less a given how the election will end.
If you're in a red|blue state where the outcome is roughly 70/30 in every election, it doesn't really matter whether you cast your vote for Hillary|Trump. It doesn't even matter whether the state is for or against the candidate you're for or against. Your vote simply does not matter.
You now essentially have three choices. Either you can say "fuck this shit" and stay at home, knowing that it doesn't matter anyway. You can participate in the circus and vote for Hillary|Trump. Or you can show that yes, you would've gone there, you wanted to participate but neither of the two clowns is good enough for your vote, but there is someone who voices your concerns, and he got your vote because of this.
No, this will not change anything. At the very least not immediately. The most you could hope for is that in further elections politicians will try to gain votes and check what agendas moved people. If you can get 5% more votes by catering to the anti-surveillance crowd, they'll go for this.
But then again, since your vote is for the toilet anyway, why not be creative with it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is no "capitalism" under "libertarianism". Without government to enforce laws, it all devolves into "strong man with big stick takes everything".
Because he's not a criminal or a raving nut. Sad but necessary.
The problem with the people you're arguing with is they are skipping over the 50th to 99th percentile of the people to complain about the 1% at the top - and they're willing to "punish" all the people in the middle just to get at that 1%. They say "look at Bill Gates" or "look at Paris Hilton," not look at the people making six figures that are having as much problem putting their kids through college because they're ineligible for ANYTHING because they make "too much." They get ZERO benefits because of their incomes, but are paying top or near top effective income tax rates. In the U.S. you are punished the most for making more up until you get that 1%, who only pay capital gains (if that) and have the means to avoid taxes. That's not how it should be, but god forbid Paris Hilton can flash her money around.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
What, like Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed under President Obama?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So, when they found out that their superiors had been lying to Congress, what did they do about that? I'm guessing that they acted in a manner that would ensure self-preservation in a situation where their superiors are always 100% sure what the subordinate employees are doing. If they call their bosses on nefarious bullshit, they will get told that they, themselves, are a threat to national security, and that's how they will be treated if the behavior persists. The individuals can be really conscientious, but the structure of their organization can prevent that from making any difference.